Last week, the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change went further than it ever has in blaming humans for the role in climate change in its fifth report, warning that the warming is happening faster, and will only get worse.

Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, said Thomas Stocker, a Working Group co-chair. As a result of our past, present and expected future emissions of [carbon dioxide], we are committed to climate change, and effects will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 stop.

But has the new report changed the mind of any of the leading climate change skeptics? FRONTLINE asked several for their thoughts. Heres what two of them told us:

The global warming establishment is in denial, said Myron Ebell, director of Freedom Action and the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The IPCC summary is merely further evidence of this denial of reality. They are living in cloud-cuckoo land or, perhaps more accurately (to switch to a more modern satirist), they are remarkably similar to the projectors in Gullivers third voyage.

He added: Nothing the IPCC can claim at this point can change the debate, which is over: global warming may become a problem at some point in the next fifty or a hundred years (although the chances are slim), but global warming is not a crisis.

Christoper Monckton at the Science and Public Policy Institute slammed the IPCC, saying Set against real-world observations and problems, the IPCC process has become a costly, self-indulgent, self-centered, self-serving, selfish organized-crime racket.

He added: However many lies the IPCC and the mad governments who back it tell, the truth remains unaltered and unalterable. Mans influence on the climate is puny and will remain puny. The science is in; the truth is out; Al Gore is through; Green stocks are down; the game is up; the panic is off; and the scare is over.

In Climate of Doubt, FRONTLINE explored how a small cadre of skeptics, including Ebell and Monckton, began working to challenge the science behind climate change. The film reveals how climate skeptics mobilized, built their argument, and undermined public acceptance of a global scientific consensus.

It started in 1998, when the then-chief executive of ExxonMobil, Lee Raymond, decided to take on not only the business, but the science on climate change. Exxon began funding groups to explore his theory, including the Global Climate Science Team, which drew up a national plan to challenge global warming science.

Victory will be achieved when average citizens understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the conventional wisdom, the team wrote.

Theyve had some success. Most Americans  more than six in 10  do not think global warming is an imminent threat, according to a poll conducted earlier this year.

In the film, FRONTLINE correspondent John Hockenberry asks Ebell about the potential consequences of their work.

PBS/Frontline take on the skeptics of global warming in a very interesting, compelling way, one that effectively demonstrates the extent in which the liberal, left-wing mindset has lost any touch with reality as characterized to the extreme in the manner in which they believe global warming is a real phenomena. On a pathological basis, the left-wing, liberal mindset is one that has metastasized to the very limits of their skull case destroying every last neuron in the process,leaving behind the remnants of a seeming mad-cow-disease ravaged-like gelatinous mass serving as their brain.

Beyond Incredulous, that the AGW crowd has engaged in a conspiracy of the unscientific, proof of which has them being caught red-handed time and time again, now has them regaling the gullible of how the AGW skeptics having utilized trickery, demagoguery, who knows, may have been witchcraft as well, in the promotion of their new documentary "exposing" the conspiracy of anti-AGW skeptics in convincing the public that AGW is a lie.

In Climate of Doubt, FRONTLINE explored how a small cadre of skeptics, including Ebell and Monckton, began working to challenge the science behind climate change. The film reveals how climate skeptics mobilized, built their argument, and undermined public acceptance of a global scientific consensus.

That there is no discourse regarding the validity of global warming in any way, just repeating the UN's report in rote-like manner, dismissive of any one not being the most zealous of believers in tooth-fairy fashion, shows liberalism at its most abjectly pretentious, their intellectual arrogance that they know what's best for you oozes out of every one of their unctuous pores.

The article isn't about global warming per say, the details s uncovered by AWG "experts, the ramifications of the rise in global temperature on every aspect existing on the planet, just only approaching the issue in an US vs THEM arena.

Reading the story, you get a palpable sense of just how convoluted, stricken these people are, their way of thinking having you see them as some lower from of life.

4 billion years of natural climate change can’t be denied. Prepare for the eventual climate change that will happen. Don’t waste money trying to stop climate change, it will always be unstoppable. Use this planets resources wisely. Develop new energy systems that produce less pollution. Quit trying to reverse 200 years of pollution. It’s a waste of resources.

4
posted on 10/03/2013 9:45:55 PM PDT
by jyro
(French-like Democrats wave the white flag of surrender while we are winning)

What has baffled me for some time is the utter gall with which the AGW crowd puts forth their claim that man kinds contribution to a trace atmospheric gas will somehow melt glaciers, flood cities and cause world wide famine ,pestilence and death.

CO2 is less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of the total atmosphere.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

What do they have for proof? Computer models that anyone who bothers to think about and understands computer programs will realize can be written to produce whatever result the program writer desires. The initial assumptions or the formulae written in to the model can produce whatever end result is predetermined by the designer.

Selection of data can also be used to cant the results of a computer model. This has been as I recall the chosen tool for predetermining the results for the AGW scammers because it is more subtle.

For me the AGW emperors have no cloths. They have little proof to substantiate their extraordinary claims.

11
posted on 10/03/2013 10:10:01 PM PDT
by Pontiac
(The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)

Okay. I apologize for my uncharacteristic sloppiness. I used the acronym 'AWG' when I meant to use 'AGW' in an effort to save space in the title.

I meant to post the letters 'AGW', which seemingly once upon a time was used by skeptics to mean Anti-Global-Warming, as my fading memory has me recall. But doing research for 'AGW' I was unable to find the acronym 'AGW' anywhere to mean Anti-Global Warming. So 'AGW', by my convoluted circumlocution, was meant as 'Anti Global Warming' even though I can't verify that it was ever used that way.

Once again, I apologize for my sloppiness, lack of being more meticulous about the way I posted the title.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.